Perez v.

Estrada
A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC
September 13, 2001

Facts:
This was a motion for reconsideration of the decision denying petitioners’
request for permission to televise and broadcast live the trial of former President
Estrada before the Sandiganbayan. One of the petitioners who argues that there was
really no conflict between the right of the people to public information and the freedom
of the press, on the one hand, and, on the other, the right of the accused to a fair trial;
that if there is a clash between these rights, it must be resolved in favor of the right of
the people and the press because the people, as the repository of sovereignty, are
entitled to information; and that live media coverage is a safeguard against attempts by
any party to use the courts as instruments for the pursuit of selfish interests.

On the other hand, former President Joseph E. Estrada reiterates his objection to
the live TV and radio coverage of his trial on the ground that its allowance will violate
the sub judice rule and that, based on his experience with the impeachment trial, live
media coverage will only pave the way for so-called "expert commentary" which can
trigger massive demonstrations aimed at pressuring the Sandiganbayan to render a
decision one way or the other. Mr. Estrada contends that the right of the people to
information may be served through other means less distracting, degrading, and
prejudicial than live TV and radio coverage.

Issue:
Whether the television and radio coverage of plunder case be allowed

Decision:
No. The Court has considered the arguments of the parties on this important
issue and, after due deliberation, finds no reason to alter or in any way modify its
decision prohibiting live or real time broadcast by radio or television of the trial of the
former president. By a vote of nine (9) to six (6) of its member, the Court denies the
motion for reconsideration of the Secretary of Justice.

In lieu of live TV and radio coverage of the trial, the Court, by the vote of eight (8)
Justices, has resolved to order the audio-visual recording of the trial for documentary
purposes. Seven (7) Justices vote against the audio-visual recording of the trial.
Considering the significance of the trial before the Sandiganbayan of former President
Estrada and the importance of preserving the records thereof, the Court believes that
there should be an audio-visual recording of the proceedings. The recordings will not
be for live or real time broadcast but for documentary purposes. Only later will they be
available for public showing, after the Sandiganbayan shall have promulgated its
decision in every case to which the recording pertains. The master film shall be
deposited in the National Museum and the Records Management and Archives Office
for historical preservation and exhibition pursuant to law.